Re: tsearch filenames unlikes special symbols and numbers

From: "Trevor Talbot" <quension(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Mark Mielke" <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "Oleg Bartunov" <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: tsearch filenames unlikes special symbols and numbers
Date: 2007-09-03 17:02:50
Message-ID: 90bce5730709031002r58c8f1d8oece7692da0597ba6@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers

On 9/3/07, Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Also, ____ says that Windows throws an error for ":" in the filename,
> > which means we needn't.

> Windows doesn't fail - but it can do odd things. For example, try:
>
> C:\> echo hi >foo:bar
>
> If one then checks the directory, one finds a "foo".

: is used for naming streams and attribute types in NTFS filenames.
It's not very well-known functionality and tends to confuse people,
but I'm not aware of any situation where it'd be a problem for read
access. (Creation is not a security risk in the technical sense, but
as most administrators aren't aware of alternate data streams and the
shell does not expose them, it's effectively hidden data.)

If any of you are familiar with MacOS HFS resource forks, NTFS
basically supports an arbitrary number of named forks. A file is
collection of one or more data streams, the single unnamed stream
being default.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Decibel! 2007-09-03 17:18:58 Code examples
Previous Message Mark Mielke 2007-09-03 14:54:28 Re: tsearch filenames unlikes special symbols and numbers

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kenneth Marshall 2007-09-03 17:18:08 Re: Hash index todo list item
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-09-03 16:43:00 Re: Per-function GUC settings: trickier than it looked